UlBRAM OF CONriRESsi 

^ UNITED STATES UF AMERICA. | 



1 



'< 



-m^^Mmm- 



i^noo:E]]E]nDin>ja-s 



EX PARTE COUNCIL, 



HELD AT THE 




<®'' 



t 



III)' 




ll 




^^iiircE, 



WASPIINGTON, D. C. 



J\'0 VEMBER 18th to 20th, 1868. 



PHILADELPHIA : 
KING & BAIRD, PRINTERS, No. 607 SANSOM STREET. 

1868. 



^ 






MINUTES OF COUNCIL. 

All ecclesiastical council, in response to letters missive from 
a minority of the First Congregational Cliurcli, Washington, 
D. C, met at 12 m., on Wednesday, I^ovemher 18th, 1868, in 
their house of worship, corner Tenth and G streets. 

The council was called to order hy Rev. E. K. Alden, D. D., 
of Boston ; and, on motion, Rev. Thomas Wickes, D. D., of 
Marietta, Ohio, was chosen Moderator, and Rev. Edward 
Hawes, Philadelphia, Scribe. 

The following letters missive were read: — 

Members of the First Congregational Church 

of Washington^ D. C, 
To the Central Church of Philadelphia^ Penna. : 

Greeting : 

Whereas, Unhappily, a state of things exists among us which 
in the judgment of a large portion of the church renders it 
necessary that we have the advice of a council ; and 

Whereas, Efforts extending through nearly eight months 
have been made to secure a mutual council, which the pastor 
and another portion of the church have in various ways 
defeated : 

Now therefore, We, the undersigned, representing the said 
portion of the church who deem the council necessary, and 
acting under their appointment, do affectionately invite your 
attendance by your pastor and delegate upon an ex j^ccf^te coun- 
cil to be convened in the First Congregational Church, in this 
city, on the 18th day of iSTovember next, at 12 M. 

We propose then and there to submit for your advice the 
question of the dissolution of the existing pastoral relation ; 
the late action of the church in removing two of the deacons 



without charges made or hearing had, and all the other diffi- 
culties which are now disturbing the peace of the Church. 

The following churches are invited : 

First Trinitarian Church, St. Louis, Mo. ; Congregational 
Church, Harlem, I^. Y. ; Congregational Church, Marietta, 
Ohio ; Mt. Yernon Church, Boston, Mass. ; Plymouth Church, 
Cleveland, Ohio ; Phillip's Church, South Boston, Mass. ; Cen- 
tre Church, New Haven, Conn. ; Congregational Church, 
Rutland, Yt. ; Second Congregational Church, Hartford, 
Conn. ; ISTorth Church, l^ew Bedford, Mass. ; Tabernacle 
Church, ^ew York City; Central Church, Philadelphia, 
Penna. ; Church of the Pilgrims, Brooklyn, IST. Y. ; First Con- 
gregational Church, Baltimore, Md. 

Also the following individuals : 

Edwards A. Park, D. D., And over, Mass. ; Leonard Bacon, 
D. D., IsTew Haven, Conn. 

.V- ,V. -V* Ai* ,V, .V. ,v, 

W w . TV 77 TV W Iv 

0. 0. HOWARD, 
S. H. HODOES, 
W. F. BASCOM, 
D. L. EATOI:^, 
DAOTEL TYLER. 

WASHINaTON, D. C, 

October 24^A, 1868. 



To the Central Congregational Churchy 

Philadelphia^ Penna, : 
Dear Brethren: 

Apprehensive that our letter missive inviting you to meet 
in council in reference to our affairs, on the 18th inst., may 
lack proper formality, we request leave to supplement it by 
the following added clause : 

"We, as an oppressed and aggrieved minority of the church, 
by the pastor's influence over the majority denied even a 
church meeting in which to plead for ourselves and for what 
we believe to be the truth, as well as the opportunity to lay 
our situation before a mutual council, and as we fully believe 



3 

(unless you can help us) doomed to see this church lost to our 
denomination and hopelessly destroyed, respectfully and most 
earnestly request jour presence at the time before named to 
consider our sad case and to offer us the aid of your fraternal 
counsel. 

We have asked for the presence of the acting pastor of Cen- 
tre Church, JS'ew Haven, Eev. G. L. Walker. 

Affectionately, 

0. 0. HOWARD, 
S. H. HODGES, 
W. F. BASCOM, 

D. L. eato:n^, 

D. TYLER, 

Committee. 
Washington, D. C, 

November t>th, 1868. 

The council was composed of representatives of the churches, 
as follows : 

First Trinitarian Congregational Church, St. Louis, Mo., 
Delegate, Hon. S. B. Kellogg. 

Congregational Church, Harlem, IST. Y., Pastor, Rev. S. 
Bourne ; Delegate, Edgar Ketchum, Esq. 

Congregational Church, Marietta, Ohio, Pastor, Thomas 
Wickes, D. D. 

Mt. Vernon Church, Boston, Delegate, Deacon Andrew 
Cushing. 

Phillip's Church, South Boston, Pastor, Rev. E. K. Alden, 
D. D. ; Delegate, Brother Moses C. Lang. 

Centre Church, JS'ew Haven, Prof. A. C. Twining, LL. D. 

Tabernacle Church, ^. Y., Brother Thomas S. Berry. 

Central Church, Philadelphia, Pastor, Rev. Edward Hawes ; 
Brother Theodore Bliss. 

First Congregational Church, Baltimore, Pastor, Rev. Edwin 
Johnson ; Brother Martin Hawley. 

Prayer was offered by Rev. Mr. Johnson. Dr. Alden then 
called for the records of the church relating to any efforts 
made for the securing of a mutual council. And, in response, 
letters were presented, one dated ^N'ovember 7, 1868, from the 



» 



scribe of tlie committee appointed by the minority, asking of 
the clerk of the churcli, that he would furnish for reference the 
records held in his possession ; and one dated J^ovember 10th, 
1868, written by Dr. Boynton, and presented by the clerk as 
an answer to the above. The records not being produced, Mr. 
W. F. Bascom, on behalf of the minority, proceeded, at length, 
to give information respecting the attempts that had been 
made by the minority for securing a mutual council. After 
the conclusion of his statements, it was moved by Dr. Alden, 
" That this council courteously request of the clerk of the 
First Congregational Church, the use of the records of the 
church to assist in their deliberations." Dr. Alden and 
Brother E. Ketchum were appointed to present this request of 
the council. They received the following reply: 

Messrs. E. K. Alden and Edgar Ketchum, 

Committee of Ex parte Council. 

Sirs : Your communication asking for the records of First 
Congregational Church, Washington, was duly referred to the 
committee appointed to call a mutual council, and I am in- 
structed to furnish the ex parte council any information con- 
tained in the records. 

Respectfully, yours, 

C. H. BUXTON^, 

Clerk First Congregational Church. 
Washington, D. C, 

November ISth, 1868' 

While this conference of the committee with the clerk of 
the church was being held, various letters were read from 
churches invited to a former ex parte council, expressive of their 
opinion of the desirableness of securing, if possible, a mutual 
council. The report of the above committee being received, it 
was, on motion of Eev. E. Johnson, voted, " That council being 
satisfied with the evidence presented, of eiforts on the part of 
the minority to secure a mutual council, do now proceed under 
the call by which it was convened." It was still further voted, 
on motion of Mr. Johnson, " That a committee be appointed to 
confer with the pastor and majority of the church and earnestly 



to request that they will unite with the minority and with us 
in the endeavor to learn what is truth and duty with reference 
to the subject that has called us together." The committee 
appointed by the chair consisted of Rev. Mr. Johnson, Thomas 
S. Berry, and Professor A. C. Twining. It was then voted 
that the council take a recess till 7 o'clock p. m. 

The council met according to adjournment. 

After a season spent in devotional exercises, the report of the 
Committee of Conference was presented by Rev. E. Johnson, 
as follows : 

"Your committee have attended to the duty assigned them, 
and hereby report : 

" That the pastor and committee representing the majority 
of the church decline to appear before the present council in a 
mutual effort with the minority to secure a just and harmoni- 
ous result. 

" Your committee after hearing this decision, on their own 
responsibility, put the following question : 

" Whether in case the minority would consent to place a state- 
ment of their grievances before the council which, it is under- 
stood, has been called to meet in January next, so that the 
council then to assemble might be able to mediate between the 
majority and minority as a mutual council, they would be 
allowed to do so ? 

" This question was answered in the negative. 

" We will only add that the conversation was kind, earnest 
and protracted, but without the possibility on our part of 
securing a conclusion more in accordance with your wishes 
and our own." 

, edwi:n' joh^^sojs^, 
thomas s. berry, 
ALEX. c. Twmma. 

Appended to this report was the following statement from 
the committee representing the majority of the church : 

" We decline to make this ex parte council a mutual council. 
" In the mutual council now called by the church for the 



13th of January next, any member of tlie minority in the 
church will have the same rights with any other member. 

" We do not propose to recognize the minority as an organ- 
ized body to be represented as such in the council. 

J. W. EUMSEY, 
K B. BARTLETT, 
JAMES S. DELANO, 
E. I^. STEYEi^S, 
A. L. STURTEYAISTT, 
CHi^S. B. BDYIS^TOIS', 

Fastor. 

The clerk then, by request, read the record of the action 
of the church with reference to the calling of a council on 
the 13th January, 1869. He also read the letter missive, 
by which such council is invited. On motion, such portions 
of the church records as bear at all on the questions at 
issue were read by the clerk. Following this reading, was 
a protracted discussion, touching many points of congrega- 
tional law and usage, but bearing mainly on the question : Is 
it not still possible to secure, in the interests of the First 
Congregational Church, Washington, a council that shall 
be really mutual ? Remarks were made by Dr. Boynton, 
and others representing the majority; after which, it being 
evident that no concessions would be made to the minority, 
and that the purpose to refuse them the right of being one 
party, in the calling of a mutual council, was fixed, it was, 
on motion of Brother E. Ketchum, '•^ Resolved^ That the mem- 
bers of this church who have called this council, be now 
requested to make a statement of the grounds upon which they 
have made such call." 

The council then adjourned to meet in the same place on 
Thursday, at 9J o'clock a. m. 

Thursday morning. The council met according to adjourn- 
ment. After prayer by the Moderator, the minutes were read 
and approved. Papers bearing on the matters at issue, 
additional to those presented on the preceding day, were then 
read by the clerk of the church. It appearing that these papers 
had not been entered on the church records and had not been 



presented to the church for their approval, objection was made 
by some members of the minority to certain statements of 
fact which they contained. It was then, on motion of Rev. 
Edwin Johnson, voted that " The council respectfully request 
a copy of the letter missive, prepared by a committee of the 
church, for the calling of a mutual council on October 13th, 
1868, to which letter it is alleged, the members of the com- 
mittee representing the minority refused their signature." 
The scribe of the council, as directed, presented a request for 
the letter referred to, and received the following in reply . 

Rev. Edward Hawes, 

Clerk of Ex jparte Council : 

Your communication asking a copy of letter missive, pre- 
pared by a committee of the church appointed to call a mutual 
council to convene October 13, was referred to that committee, 
and I am informed that the whereabouts of the original letter 
is not known, so that a copy of it cannot be furnished you. 
The committee, however, state that the substance of this letter 
was the same as that contained in the report of the committee 
appointed to reconcile difficulties acted upon by the church, at 
a meeting held June 30, 1868. 

Respectfully, 

C. H. BUXTO]Sr, 

Clerk Congregational Church, 
Washington, D. C, 

November 19th, 1868. 

Mr. W. F. Bascom, conducting the case for the minority, 
laid before the council a printed paper, with this heading : 
"Charges and specifications touching Dr. C. B. Boynton." 
The point immediately made by Dr. Alden was, that the paper 
could not be properly presented to this council ; and after an 
explanation by the minority that the paper was designed by 
them to serve merely as a memorandum for their convenience 
and that of the council, it was, in accordance with leave given, 
withdrawn. Dr. Boynton here desired the privilege of pre- 
senting, on behalf of the majority, a protest against the pro- 



8 

ceedings of the council. Objection was made by Brother 
Edgar Ketchum to the reading of the paper, on the ground 
that it was not the proper time to introduce it ; the first order 
of business having been fixed, and that business being yet un- 
finished ; but he would not object to its presentation, in due 
order, at the conclusion of that business ; and it was not received. 
Mr. Bascomthen proceeded to state the object of the minority 
in calling an ex parte council. He regarded as the source of the 
difiiculties now dividing the church, the existence of personal 
feeling on the part of Dr. Boynton against Gen. 0. 0. Howard. 
Mr. Bascom then made extended remarks respecting the per- 
sistent opposition of the pastor to the wishes of the minority, 
with regard to calling a mutual council. He claimed that the 
acts of Dr. Boynton in manifesting this opposition, were not in 
accordance with Congregational usage, and also that they 
were in themselves unjust. He still further cited a case of 
church discipline, resulting in the suspension of a member 
from this church, in consequence of the writing of a private 
letter, before the orderly steps marked out by our Lord, in 
Matt. 18th, had been taken, and before the ofiending member 
was allowed an opportunity of defence. He also specified the 
action of the church in removing two of the deacons without 
charges made, or hearing had. 

The council then took a recess ; after which, Mr. Bascom 
resumed his statements. He referred to questions, objected to 
at the time, but still urged by the pastor, proposed to those 
presenting themselves for admission to the church, as to their 
purpose, to be on the side of the pastor, or otherwise. Mr. 
Bascom stated that in consequence of the facts referred to, and 
also of what he denominated the " caucus system,'' by which 
matters of great importance were not discussed in public 
church meeting, but simply voted on ; it had become the 
settled conviction of the minority, that the future welfare of 
the church could be secured only by a dissolution of the 
present pastoral relation. 

It was moved that evidence be now received on the points 
already "noticed, ^he first witness called was General 0. 0. 
Howard. He was questioned respecting the removal of his 
name from the charter ; occurrences at the time of a preparatory 



lecture, when the chair was vacated by Dr. Boynton ; the kind 
of examination to which persons were subjected when apply- 
ing for admission to the church; the spirit of the meeting 
when the Board of Deacons was, without previous notice, 
declared vacant ; and the proportion of moneys raised at home 
and abroad by the minority and majority. From the answers 
of General Howard, it appeared that in many respects, the 
action of the church had been of an extraordinary and oppres- 
sive character, and also, that the minority included both those 
who had raised nearly all the funds for building and other 
church purposes, and a large proportion of those who are doing 
the religious work of the church. Various , other witnesses 
were examined, whose testimony was corroborative of the 
statements already made. From, the testimony of Mr. E. W. 
Eobinson, it appeared that during the early history of the 
church, it was the custom for only male members to vote, but 
that universal suffrage became a fact, when the pastor sought 
additional votes for the accomplishment of his own purposes. 
After various suggestions by different members of the council, 
it was, on motion of Mr. Ketchum, voted that the council take 
a recess till 6|- o'clock p. m. ; and that the examination of 
witnesses on ,the part of the minority be concluded in one 
hour from that time. 

Met according to adjournment. Prayer was offered by Mr. 
Berry. Some further testimony was presented on the part of 
the minority, showing that colored persons on seeking admis- 
sion to the church, had felt that they were not welcomed, but 
by some were repelled. In addition to the above testimony, 
docum.entary evidence was laid before the council. After the 
evidence was concluded, Rev. Dr. Alden moved "that the 
pastor and committee of the majority of the church have per- 
mission to introduce testimony in explanation or correction of 
statements made by the witnesses of the parties calling, this 
council." It was then mbved by Prof. Twining " that the 
Rev. Dr. Boynton have an hour to offer, on behalf of himself 
and his church, his or their views appropriate to the matters 
before this council." During a discussion occasioned by a 
falsified record of the doings of this council, which appeared 
in the "Evening Star" of this city. Dr. Boynton declined 



10 

presenting any protest, or making any statement to the 
council. 

The council then went into secret session, and after a pro- 
tracted conference adjourned till 9 J o'clock A. M., on Friday. 

Met according to adjournment, and after a careful compari- 
son of views, the council came unanimously to the result fol- 
lowing these minutes. 

It was moved that a copy of this result he presented to the 
minority, and to the clerk of the church. 

It was further moved, that after the reading of the result of 
council, and after remarks and prayer by the Moderator, the 
council he declared dissolved. 

THOS. "WICKES, Moderator, 
EDWAED HA WES, Scribe, 
Washington, D. C, 

November 20, 1868. 



RESULT OF COUNCIL. 

The grave importance of the subject matter submitted to 
this council, will justify a somewhat detailed statement. 

1. We entered upon and have continued our labors with a 
solemn sense of accountability to the Great Master, and to the 
churches of our country, to whom this First Congregational 
Church of Washington is an object of peculiar interest. It 
has .been our earnest desire and hope to do something which, 
by the Divine blessing, might help to restore harmony and 
union where these had been lost, and where the loss was so 
deeply to be lamented. Whatever may prove to have been 
our success or failure, we cannot but render to our Heavenly 
Father most hearty thanks that we have been of one mind 
and heart concerning all important decisions upon the sub- 



II 

jects brought before us for opinion and advice ; so that every 
vote passed has been with entire unanimity. 

2. From the records of the church and other evidence pre- 
sented, it was made plain to the council that earnest efforts 
extending through a period of several months had been made 
by the aggrieved members, that a mutual council might be 
called by the church and by the aggrieved members, and that 
this request had been refused, so that the call of an ex parte 
council seemed an absolute necessity, and in conformity with 
established congregational usage. 

In coming to this conclusion, the council first inquired into 
the steps taken by the aggrieved members, prior to the call 
for their council, dated October 24, 1868, to obtain a mutual 
council. 

From the evidence presented, we find that as early as the 
18th of March last, at a regular church meeting called at the 
request of the aggrieved members for that purpose, a mutual 
council was asked, and the motion was laid upon the table. 
That subsequently on the 4th of May, at a meeting of the 
church. General 0. 0. Howard submitted a proposition for a 
mutual council, with the statement that if the same was re- 
fused, they would call an ex parte one, and this motion was 
laid upon the table without discussion. An ex parte council 
was subsequently called to meet in June last. A protest 
against the meeting of said council from the pastor and a part 
of the deacons, was sent to the invited churches, which pro- 
test does not appear by the records, either to have been sub- 
mitted to or authorized by the church, at any regular or called 
meeting thereof. This protest called forth from several of the 
churches invited, earnest and fraternal communications, urging 
a mutual council, and addressed to the authors of the protest 
and the church, as well as to those who had invited an ex 
parte council, which letters were not communicated by the 
pastor to the church. 

On the 30th of June, a regular meeting of the church was 
held, the records of which meeting are not on the record book 
of the church, but on inquiring why this omission occurred, 
the original minutes of the meeting were produced and read 
by the clerk of the church for the information of the council. 



12 



At this meeting a committee was appointed, consisting of tlie 
pastor and three members of the majority, and two members 
of the minority so called, to prepare a call for a mutual coun- 
cil. The minority asked for an equal representation on the 
committee, which was refused, on the ground that the parties 
to the call were the pastor and the church. A protest of one 
of the members to this decision was offered, but it was not 
allowed to be entered on the minutes. 

The committee thus appointed, agreed upon the churches to 
be invited to meet on the 13th of October, though it was under- 
stood that the minority as a body would have no standing in 
the council. 

Dr. Boynton prepared a long letter missive (which letter 
was not among the minutes, and neither the original nor a copy 
could be obtained by the council) and sent it to the committee. 
This letter was not satisfactory to the minority of the com- 
mittee, and they declined to sign it in that form, but would 
append a notfe to the effect that they concurred in inviting the 
council. Dr. Boynton objected, and the letters were not sent. 
Afterwards Dr. Boynton publicly in the church on Sunday, 
September 6, tendered his resignation as pastor, to take effect 
on the 1st of March, 1869. 

In the early part of October, a written request, signed by 
some twenty-five members of the church, was presented to the 
pastor, to appoint at the services on Sunday, the 11th of 
October, a church meeting to be held on the 13th October, for 
taking action on his resignation of the 6th of September. 

This request was not read, or the meeting called as asked, 
but the pastor gave notice that a meeting would be held on 
the 20th of October, without stating the object. On the 18th 
October, at the morning service, the pastor withdrew his resig- 
nation, at the written request of a large number of the church, 
and said the meeting on the 20th October would not be held. 

It is clear from the evidence that the members of the church 
who have called the ex parte council here convened, have for 
a long time felt aggrieved by the action of the pastor and the 
church, and they have during a long period earnestly desired 
and repeatedly requested, the call of a mutual council in ac- 
cordance with congregational usage, and as they were in duty 



13 

bound, to redress the matters complained of, and to promote 
the peace and prosperity of the Church of Christ, of which 
they are members ; and they have used all reasonable efforts to 
procure such mutual council without success. 

3. Feeling how important it was to the interests involved, 
that not only the party calling us, but also the party with 
which they were at variance, should consent to appear and 
submit their grievances to our consideration, we at the outset 
appointed a committee of our number respectfully to solicit 
such co-operation on their part. The committee so appointed, 
after a protracted interview with the pastor and a committee 
representing the majority, returned the following report. (See 
page 5.) 

The proposition to make this ex parte council a mutual one 
being thus declined, and a negative answer being given to the 
question whether the council called to meet in January next, 
would be aUowed to assume a mutual character as between 
the parties at variance, we considered it our duty to proceed 
according to the tenor of the letters missive. 

4. I^otwithstanding the refusal above noted, we are happy 
to say that the pastor and the committee of the church were 
present at our opening sessions, and furnished, through the re- 
cords of the church and other documents, and through their 
own statements and inquiries, important light upon the mat- 
ters brought before us. 

5. Also, notwithstanding their refusal to enter the council 
on equal footing ^vith the minority, we on our part were will- 
ing to yield to them the privilege of reply to statements and 
testimony furnished us by the party who requested our advice. 
Accordingly on the conclusion of the testimony referred to, a 
vote was passed as follows : " That the pastor and committee 
of the majority of the church have permission to introduce 
testimony in explanation or correction of statement made 
by the witnesses of the parties calling the council." This 
liberty was declined as being inadequate. It was then 
voted " that the Rev. Dr. Boynton have an hour to offer, on 
behalf of himself and his church, his or their views appro- 
priate to the matters before this council." One hour and a 
half having been named as a suitable limit for the presentation 



of statements, the pastor replied that probably one hour would 
be fully sufficient. He was about proceeding to read a protest 
against the assembling and action of this council, when a ques- 
tion was raised as to the manner in which this and other docu- 
ments not yet presented to the council had already found their 
way into the public prints, and were being circulated through 
the city, as part of the doings of the council. Pending this 
inquiry, and a brief discussion upon it, the pastor declined to 
make any further statement to the council, and accordingly 
withdrew, thus putting a period to our efforts to secure for 
himself and the majority a further hearing. 

6. We desire to speak in warm terms of the spirit mani- 
fested by the minority in presence of the council. Whatever 
may have been their faults of temper or of speech heretofore, 
and without testimony on that point we may assume that 
they have not been faultless, they have exhibited to us in the 
presentation of their case a composed, candid, and concilia- 
tory disposition. 

7. From the evidence before us, we must conclude that the 
minority have been and are sincerely desirous of having all 
the difficulties in the church submitted to a mutual council, 
to which the majority and themselves should hold the same 
relation as parties thereto. Most gladly indeed would they 
accept the churches invited by the majority to meet January 
13, as composing a body than which none could be more able 
or more willing to deal justly and truly with the whole case. 
But thus far they are unable to get consent of the majority 
to be represented before that council as a party in the ques- 
tions at issue. 

8. We have had laid before us convincing evidence of hasty 
and irregular action on the part of the pastor and the church 
in the transaction of the business of the church, endangering 
the character of the church as a congregational body ; the 
meetings being sometimes disorderly — opportunity for the full 
discussion of important matters not being always allowed, and 
the Moderator, while occupying the chair as presiding officer, 
taking part in the debate, and thus securing undue advantage. 
We think the action in the summary removal of the deacons 
from their office was, to speak in the mildest form, very in- 



15 

judicious, and that the action was both hasty and irregular 
in the summary suspension of one of the members of the church 
before the proper preliminary steps in church discipline had 
been taken. 

We also believe that the repellant attitude in which the 
church was placed toward our Christian brethren of the colored 
race, by the manner in which the examination of certain per- 
sons of that race proposing to unite with the church was con- 
ducted, and by some of the public utterances of the pastor 
afterward, is in serious conflict with the expectation of the 
congregational churches at large concerning the policy which 
this church would pursue — seeking to realize the law of liberty, 
equality and fraternity in the kingdom of our Lord and 
Saviour. 

9. Concerning the dissolution of the pastoral relation, the 
case presents itself to us thus : On the one side are a majority 
of the church members warmly attached to the pastor, and 
entirely opposed to the change in his oJ0&cial relation. Their 
devotion i*in itself highly commendable, and their judgment 
is entitled to much deference. 

On the other side are sixty-five or more members, about 
one-third of the church, who comprise a large amount of in- 
telligence and moral worth, and among whom is one every- 
where honored and beloved, through whose assiduous and self- 
denying labor, and in part in tribute to whose patriotic service 
and sacrifice, by far the larger portion of the money for build- 
ing this beautiful sanctuary was obtained. 

Surely the conviction of such a minority as to the necessity 
of the pastor's withdrawal, in order to the prosperity and peace 
of the church, is worthy of the gravest consideration. 

While, then, if compelled to judge solely by the evidence 
obtained by us, acting in our capacity as an ex parte council, 
we should assign to the spirit and methods of the pastor so 
much responsibility for the troubles of the church as to make 
his withdrawal in our judgment expedient, we are fully and 
emphatically of the opinion that the case is one that demands 
the advice of a mutual council, before which all the facts and 
considerations bearing upon it might be made the basis of ex- 
amination and advice. 



i6 

In view of these facts tlie council is unanimous in present- 
ing to the aggrieved minority the following advisory sug- 
gestions : 

1. That they take special heed to their own words and acts, 
endeavoring to show in every respect a kind, charitable and 
Christian spirit, in all conferences among themselves, and in 
all dealings with the church and pastor. 

2. That after prayerful deliberation they present a written 
request to the church of which they are members, asking in 
a courteous and respectful manner that they may have the 
privilege of being represented before the council called to meet 
January 13, 1869, with the full opportunity of submitting to 
that council all matters pertaining to their difficulties with 
the church and the pastor. We sincerely hope that such a 
request will be granted by the church, and will thus attest 
to the sincere desire of the pastor and the church, as well as 
of the minority, that that council should be a mutual one, in 
the sense that it is called in the interests of both parties in 
the controversy. 

3. In the event of a refusal on the part of the church to 
this request, we advise the minority quietly to await the 
action of that council. 

It is our full conviction that if this course is followed, the 
members of the council called to meet January 13, will be 
able either to act as a mutual council, or to prepare the way 
for such a council, which shall thoroughly investigate all 
matters pertaining to the welfare of the church, in a manner 
impartial and satisfactory. 

In closing, we desire once more to call special attention to 
the relation the First Congregational Church of Washington, 
D. C, holds to the congregational churches of the country, 
that around it to an unusual degree has gathered the affec- 
tionate interest of all these churches, toward it have flowed 
their generous contributions, and with it abide the sympathies 
of multitudes of Christian hearts throughout the land. We 
fervently pray that the members of this beloved church may 
soon see eye to eye, and may keep the unity of the spirit in 
the bond of peace. 



€: 



W3li^X 



